Quote from: RE on May 17, 2025, 01:08 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 16, 2025, 03:27 PMTodays working man, as K-Dog has demonstrated, can certainly find themselves in a higher level of net worth, depending on the time and dollars they had to invest and save. Although he has also mentioned preferring low but safer return investments.

The primary reason some Boomers have 7 figure net worth is because of the vast inflation in the value of the one investment many of them have, which is their McMansion.  It's definitely the case with Kdog.

Sure. No different than investing in a 401k or Apple stock or a myriad of other mechanisms. Real estate just happens to be one that usually appreciates with time....as do market tracking funds.

A house is an investment, just like many others. But a more popular one than most. And can lead to Mr and Mrs Dog being high net worth indivudals, based on my arbitrary metric.

Quote from: REThing is, since for most of them it's their primary residence, it's not a very liquid investment.  Given the expenses of taxes, energy use and maintenance the asset can become a liability when they retire and their incomes drop.

Absolutely. Investments have their advantages and disadvantages, be they tax implications, operating expenses to maintain, and the idea that this particular investment is more affordable during ones working years. Which is why retirees cash out and move into apartments in Florida and retirement communities and whatnot.

My aunt has retired this year. She closes on her house this month, where she lived for 38 years, and is moving into an independent living facility, one of those that as your health deterioriates through time will manage/take your liquid assets and care for you until death.

My grandmother did the same thing. My mother is already in such a facility, slowly depleting her savings until they are gone, and then her retirement $ and social security will cover the costs until she passes.

Such is how our lives spin down. When the final calculations are done...a house is an investment like any other, and the decisions made as to what happens to it aren't much different. Your generational wealth idea then can kick in. Anyone who wants to pass it on can, prior to the state requiring its sale or whatever. Of course, that implies having children that one wants to see prosper in their future, and not all parents have that concern.

Quote from: REFor these reasons, I think it's worthwhile to eliminate the McMansion in an analysis of class when it's the primary residence.  Vacation homes which are more easily sold off should be counted though.  Similarly, 1 car should be discounted as a necessity, but multiple cars, RVs and motorcycles count in the net worth calculation.
RE

You might want to eliminate McMansions as an analysis of class, but as an investment the state surely won't when it comes time to fund those end of life costs.

Very few folks have enough extra cars and motorcycles and whatnot of sufficient value to be meaningful in a net worth calculation. A crazy collector (folks like I've purchased off of before) might have $100G of old Indians and exotic whatevers laying around....but the commercial real estate it was contained within was worth orders of magnitude more. Investments, including real estate, can be of sufficient scale to qualify easily though.

Quote from: TDoS on May 17, 2025, 06:04 AMSure. No different than investing in a 401k or Apple stock or a myriad of other mechanisms.

Big difference.  Liquidating your 401K doesn't make you homeless.  Also, as an investment a MaMansion doesn't earn money unless you rent it out.  So only 2nd & 3rd homes can be used this way.  401Ks don't have maintenance and repair costs.

Anyhow, basically this all just shows that the 1st $1-2M of net worrth doesn't make you filthy rich, just comfortable.   I already stipulated it takes about $10M to set up a trust fund for each kid, so you need to be comfortably into 8 figures to be filthy rich.  Really 9 figures especially if you're Elon and have 13 kids.

RE

What happened to my detailed example, including the math, of why selling ones house doesn't mean homelessness ensues? 

Net Worth Over Time

    1970s: Initial earnings from Roxy Music and early solo projects, estimated at several hundred thousand dollars.
    1980s: Major financial boost from collaborations with David Bowie and Talking Heads, net worth estimated at $10 million.
    1990s: Peak earnings from work with U2 and solo projects, net worth estimated at $30 million.
    2000s: Continued growth through diverse investments and ventures, net worth estimated at $45 million.
    2010s: Strategic investments in technology and visual arts, net worth estimated at $55 million.
    2020s: Recent financial activities and philanthropy, net worth estimated at $60 million.

Brian Eno is actively involved in various philanthropic efforts, including support for environmental causes, human rights, and social justice. He has donated substantial amounts to organizations working on climate change, environmental conservation, and promoting equality and justice. Eno also participates in benefit concerts and events to raise awareness about important social and political issues.

Some people are rich enough to be nice.  It does happen.  I would be one of them. Such know that there is more to true riches than money.  True riches have in fact nothing to do with money.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 18, 2025, 11:40 AMSome people are rich enough to be nice.  It does happen.  I would be one of them.

You are one of them, based on net worth. As am I, and other various 7 figure net worth people Iimagine.

Quote from: K-DogSuch know that there is more to true riches than money.  True riches have in fact nothing to do with money.

But of course. And more interestingly, it begs the question why it is verboten to talk about our children. They happen to be related to true riches that have nothing to do with money.

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2025, 12:24 PM

Quote from: K-Dog on May 18, 2025, 11:40 AMSome people are rich enough to be nice.  It does happen.  I would be one of them.

You are one of them, based on net worth. As am I, and other various 7 figure net worth people Iimagine.

We have established that in today's economy in the FSoA, a low 7 figure net worth doesn't make you rich, merely comfortable, since the McMansion you live in by itself can be worth over $1M.

To be a lower end rich person, in addition to the McMansion, you need an annual income that puts you in the 1%, >200K or so.  I would add in addition to that other investments which provide enough annual ROI so that if for some reason you became unable to work, you could continue to live in that house, pay all your bills and live comfortably from the passive income.  A portfolio in the neighborhood of around $5M-10M would be about right.  In other words, you may work, but you don't HAVE to work.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2025, 02:28 PMAnd what happened to my well calculated post on why K-Dog's $1,000,000 home, when sold, doesn't in any way make him homeless?

The same thing that just happened to the last post.

RE

Fitting into the category of "Rich" in Amerika isn't as simple as a single number like net worth or annual income.  It also depends on where you live, your stage of life, debt load, how the wealth is distributed and used and intangible social factors as well.

This article does a little more in depth look at how much it takes to fit into the "Rich" category.  It's still not complete, but better than a reductive metric like 7 figure net worth.  His final conclusion:

If your net worth is under $2 million and your income is under $600,000, statistically, you're probably not rich—you're upper middle class. And in today's world, that still means you're doing very well.

https://www.benzinga.com/personal-finance/25/05/45483329/are-you-rich-or-just-upper-middle-class-heres-the-net-worth-and-income-it-takes-to-be-considered-wealthy

Are You Rich or Just Upper Middle Class? Here's The Net Worth And Income It Takes To Be Considered Wealthy

My only real interest in 'am I rich' is to compare my situation to others with the deluded idea that if I and mine, have enough beans to be at least average, then we have enough beans to eat.  The idea being that when this Titanic goes down, you do not want to be below the top deck.  Not that it will matter if you do not get a lifeboat.

I am not about conspicuous consumption.  I'm only about conspicuous survival.  But I don't want to be too conspicuous about it.

We delude ourselves into thinking we can control events.  Those few who can are ruled by social pressures which make them act badly.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 19, 2025, 09:48 AMMy only real interest in 'am I rich' is to compare my situation to others with the deluded idea that if I and mine, have enough beans to be at least average, then we have enough beans to eat.  The idea being that when this Titanic goes down, you do not want to be below the top deck.  Not that it will matter if you do not get a lifeboat.

My main interest is more theoretical.  If you are going to view this as a Class War between 2 classes, Rich vs Poor, where is the line drawn, and on which side of the line does a given person stand?  Who do you fight with or for?  Do you have enough money to employ a Private Security Force to protect your property and life when the public police forces break down or become corrupted?  Will you attempt to maintain your wealth and position, or will you share it and freely give it away?  While others starve, will you hoard or share?  Are you with the crowd storming the Bastille, or are you one of the Royalty inside with their guards  defending the castle on the hill?  Which side are you on, boy, which side are you on?


When Warren Buffet said



Who was included in the Rich class?  Billionaires obviously, but also obviously it doesn't take a billion to be rich.  I think equally obviously $100M puts an individuals into the Rich class, but the line starts getting blurry below that.  At $10M a lot depends on other factors like nature of the assets, stage of life and family connections.

So, it's worthwhile to develop a decent idea of what "rich" actually means in Amerika in 2025?  This thread is examining that question.

Are you on the side of the working class and a vision of socialism — or are you siding with capital and its enforcers?

Which Side Are You On" was written in 1931.  Employment was at 25%, massive poverty collapsed faith in the  American Propaganda Dream.  The struggle in Harlan County where the song was written documents class war.  Mine owners had private militias (Pinkerton's), the police, and politicians. The miners had nothing but solidarity. Florence Reece's song captured this stark divide.

The song I post was written in 1949 by Les Rice, a farmer from New York State, USA. It deals with the perverse injustice, exploitation and inequality Rice saw all around him. Pete Seeger wrote about Les Rice and this song:

QuoteLike most small farmers, he was getting intolerably squeezed by the big companies which sold him all his fertilizer, insecticide and equipment, and the big companies that dictated to him the prices he would get for his produce. Out of that squeeze came this song.

China is selling Treasurys at rates unseen since 2008, while Japan's yields hit multi-decade highs, signaling a structural shift in global capital flows. The resulting pressure threatens the dollar's purchasing power, fuels inflation risks, and may force the Federal Reserve into controversial debt monetization.

File this under "you heard it here first".

I mentioned a week or so ago that the Chinese were likely to exercise the "nuclear option" and start dumping USTs, and lo & behold, that's exactly what's happening.  This could rapidly become a serious problem if da fed has to monetize the debt, which seems pretty unavoidable.  Hyperinflation in that scenario.

Another RE prediction comes to pass. 😀

RE

When the Japanese invaded Manchuria, people talked about the 'war in China.' When Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, well, that was 'the Polish War.' Then, the Winter War at the end of the same year was 'the war in Finland' as Finland was invaded by the Soviet Union," the source commented.

Much more to come.

RE

Quote from: RE on Apr 20, 2026, 02:59 AMI mentioned a week or so ago that the Chinese were likely to exercise the "nuclear option" and start dumping USTs, and lo & behold, that's exactly what's happening.  This could rapidly become a serious problem if da fed has to monetize the debt, which seems pretty unavoidable.  Hyperinflation in that scenario.

Another RE prediction comes to pass. 😀[/color]

RE

What is "the Fed monetizing the debt" signify? I'm  not sure I know what that means, "monetizing debt".

Quote from: TDoS on Apr 20, 2026, 03:04 PMWhat is "the Fed monetizing the debt" signify? I'm  not sure I know what that means, "monetizing debt".

Basically, it means issuing a debt instrument without having collateral to borrow against.  Money is a debt instrument, it's a note of infinite duration.  To do it, Da Fed issues USTs and buys them with money it prints rather than selling them to other banks and investors.  They have to do that because they don't have enough buyers for the debt on the open market.

RE